KCRag Forum

Thinking about this, it occurs to me that no transportation network in this country has ever been built without massive public subsidies.  Railroads probably got the fattest off the public teat from the mid-1800s until WWII.  The massive land grants and laws that allowed them operate almost independent from other authorities put today's airline payouts to shame.  Govt dollars built and sustain the highway system as well as the air travel infrastructure.

For all the money it would take to build out a national high-speed rail network, what benefit would it provide over the current, massively subsidized air system?  It probably wouldn't be any faster, nor as flexible (it would be harder to quickly add a destination).  The one benefit I can see is the smaller amount of terminal space required, allowing more city center-city center travel as opposed to airports out in the boondocks.

Just thinkin'...

jimb wrote: For all the money it would take to build out a national high-speed rail network, what benefit would it provide over the current, massively subsidized air system?  It probably wouldn't be any faster, nor as flexible (it would be harder to quickly add a destination).  The one benefit I can see is the smaller amount of terminal space required, allowing more city center-city center travel as opposed to airports out in the boondocks.

Just thinkin'...

1) more fuel efficient and less GHG emissions per passenger mile than cars or airplanes
2) lower operating costs after the initial investment
3) connects smaller cities directly to the larger network
4) you will very likely survive a train derailment
5) can operate in icy/snowy/windy weather

DaveKCMO wrote: 1) more fuel efficient and less GHG emissions per passenger mile than cars or airplanes
2) lower operating costs after the initial investment
3) connects smaller cities directly to the larger network
4) you will very likely survive a train derailment
5) can operate in icy/snowy/windy weather

I'll start by saying that I occasionally take the train to Chicago and STL, so I'm not anti-rail. But I've got to question points 3 and 5. First, to operate in icy/snowy/windy weather, there's going to have to be a serious budget set aside to trim trees. Just look at a few weeks ago, when Amtrak in MO was shut down for a couple of days because ice and snow dropped trees onto the tracks.

Regarding 3, can the cost be justified? Maybe for cities the size of Columbia or Springfield, but not Cape or Moberly.

KC0KEK wrote: I'll start by saying that I occasionally take the train to Chicago and STL, so I'm not anti-rail. But I've got to question points 3 and 5. First, to operate in icy/snowy/windy weather, there's going to have to be a serious budget set aside to trim trees. Just look at a few weeks ago, when Amtrak in MO was shut down for a couple of days because ice and snow dropped trees onto the tracks.

Regarding 3, can the cost be justified? Maybe for cities the size of Columbia or Springfield, but not Cape or Moberly.

federal and state governments frequently subsidize air service to smaller cities that the market won't support. more is spent on that subsidy, i believe, than the annual subsidy for entire amtrak system from states and the feds combined.

on routes outside of the northeast corridor, amtrak relies entirely on the freight railroads for dispatching. if union pacific says the tracks between KC and STL are closed, there's nothing amtrak can do about it. that being said, ice/snow/wind alone cannot stop a train; debris caused by those elements can. those elements can also slow a train considerably (such was the case with the california zephy route that was the only working transit mode during the recent blizzard that hit denver). also, during the same period that UP halted amtrak service on the KC-STL route, BNSF tracks were all clear for the route between KC and chicago.

Those trains always seem to be full.  Why can't we "upgrade" amtrak rather then tear it apart.  High speed trains between KC and StL would be extremely popular.  Plus, with the BILLIONS the govt is spending on the wars, etc, would cuts like this even matter?  It will only make it look they they are trying to save money somewhere, when in fact, it would only make all the gov funded projects like bringing amtrak back to union station look like an even bigger waste of money.

DaveKCMO wrote: 1) more fuel efficient and less GHG emissions per passenger mile than cars or airplanes
2) lower operating costs after the initial investment
3) connects smaller cities directly to the larger network
4) you will very likely survive a train derailment
5) can operate in icy/snowy/windy weather

Not to mention the unhijackability of trains makes them unlikely terror targets, resulting in less stringent security requirements. Personally, I'd like to see a national high speed rail network become a high priority, since trains at ~300mph could be very competitive with air travel. But, yeah...

mean wrote: Not to mention the unhijackability of trains makes them unlikely terror targets, resulting in less stringent security requirements. Personally, I'd like to see a national high speed rail network become a high priority, since trains at ~300mph could be very competitive with air travel. But, yeah...

I agree that a high speed network would be beneficial to the US but trains have been the targets of terrorist attacks here in Europe and a lot of carnage was caused in Madrid and narrowly avoided elsewhere since (e.g., France and Germany).  What is true about trains is that they cannot be ran into buildings and a terrorist attack won't generally kill everyone on board like it would on an airline.

Right, of course nothing is ever completely safe.

Actually its kinda scary how little security we have on our trains right now.

I think terrorists need a more reliable timetable than Amtrack is capable of providing.

chingon wrote: I think terrorists need a more reliable timetable than Amtrack is capable of providing.

that's the one unfortunate thing about US long distance trains... on-time performance. some are worse than others, but range from 20-90%.  imagine how popular they would be if they were always on time and had enough cars to accommodate seasonal demand? the new legislation in congress might level the playing field a bit (if it can get beyond bush's desk) by penalizing the freight railroads for amtrak's OTP (instead of paltry incentives). in nov. 2006, the southwest chief was on time 78.3% of the time. for comparison, the acela express in the northeast corridor (amtrak owns those tracks) was on time 82.2% of the time. that's on par with most flights through o'hare.

mean wrote: It's actually kind of fun to take the train. KC->Chicago on SW Chief is generally a bit faster than driving

Why is it I hear about delays where the passenger train isn't even moving because a freight train has right of way. Why is it that the passenger train has to make multiple stops on the way. In my car I drove to St. Louis in 4 hours and Chicago in 8 hours, can the train beat those times consistently? I highly doubt it.

KCK wrote:Why is it I hear about delays where the passenger train isn't even moving because a freight train has right of way.

you hear about it because that actually happens. think of it like a two-lane road with very few passing zones.

Why is it that the passenger train has to make multiple stops on the way. In my car I drove to St. Louis in 4 hours and Chicago in 8 hours, can the train beat those times consistently? I highly doubt it.

passenger trains make stops along the way for the same reason that most mass transit modes make interim stops between termini... to make the line accessible to as many people as possible, thus increasing revenue potential. the southwest chief can beat your car to chicago because the route is diagonal (or "as the crow flies"), versus all of the interstate routes that north then east (or vice versa).

the KC-STL route is a different story, since it essentially follows US 50 and the missouri river all the way (and will never be faster than your car until the tracks are improved to allow consistent travel speeds of 79 mph or higher). my personal preference is to always take the train to STL because i believe that I-70 is complete deathtrap and the scenery on the train is better (no billboards, stucky's, or porn palaces). now that STL has a decent transit system, a car is not required unless you're going to the far suburbs.

KCK wrote: In my car I drove to St. Louis in 4 hours and Chicago in 8 hours, can the train beat those times consistently? I highly doubt it.

I've never had trouble with the SW Chief.  Pulls out of KC about 7:20am and you are in downtown Chicago by 3:30 in the afternoon.  It can make 80 mph across most of Missouri (KC to Ft. Madison, IA) with only 1 stop, so the distance gets eaten up pretty quick.

However, that route may be the exception.  My grandmother traveled the country by rail until she passed away a couple of years back.  She told me all sorts of stories of getting parked on sidings for extended times - especially in Texas.  She loved the train, but always said if precise scheduling was important to you, you might want to fly.

The Coast Starlight (LA to Seattle) is notoriously late.  I caught it from Oakland once and while my northbound train was mostly on time (an hour off or so), the southbound was nearly 14 hours late.  I got the impression from the man at the ticket counter that it was normal.

Kard wrote: The Coast Starlight (LA to Seattle) is notoriously late.  I caught it from Oakland once and while my northbound train was mostly on time (an hour off or so), the southbound was nearly 14 hours late.  I got the impression from the man at the ticket counter that it was normal.

yes, but it has improved since UP has completed their track maintenance. i'll be taking that route in april and have been monitoring the status.

separately, california has been a leader in passenger rail service and is poised to fund the first high-speed network outside of the northeast; when they do build that network, it's likely that amtrak will operate it and you will no longer have those delays (since high-speed rail -- over 110 mph -- will require tracks separate from freight traffic).

KCK wrote: Why is it I hear about delays where the passenger train isn't even moving because a freight train has right of way. Why is it that the passenger train has to make multiple stops on the way. In my car I drove to St. Louis in 4 hours and Chicago in 8 hours, can the train beat those times consistently? I highly doubt it.

Both of those assertions are bunk. Amtrack has the right of way on all tracks that it operates on. They are still some delays,  but most of those are from UP tracks (western US and the run from ST. Lou to KC). Amtrack currently has a lawsuit against UP because of those delays.

True that you can drive to St. Louis when you want and a little faster than Amtrack, but you can't get to Chicago faster, or cheaper. If you buy in advance it's as low as 80 round trip. The train is also very relaxing, and I get a lot of work done when going to Chicago. I don't take it to St. Louis because i have to have a car when I'm there.

So Bush wants to fund getting 10 guys to Mars but not getting thousands of people out of there cars. I wish we could worry about saving the planet we have before we ruin some other planet.

shinatoo wrote: Both of those assertions are bunk. Amtrack has the right of way on all tracks that it operates on. They are still some delays,  but most of those are from UP tracks (western US and the run from ST. Lou to KC). Amtrack currently has a lawsuit against UP because of those delays.

I'll bet UP considers such lawsuits acceptable costs of doing business.

KCK wrote: Why is it I hear about delays where the passenger train isn't even moving because a freight train has right of way. Why is it that the passenger train has to make multiple stops on the way. In my car I drove to St. Louis in 4 hours and Chicago in 8 hours, can the train beat those times consistently? I highly doubt it.

Yeah, that's not really accurate. There are occasional delays, but they are usually no more than 5 or 10 minutes, tops (I mean, how long does it take a freight train to blow by at 90 mph?) Like everyone else has said, the train won't beat your car to St. Louis, mostly because both routes are straight shots, and because the tracks between KC and STL are crap; but the SW Chief gets to Chicago in about 7 hours consistently. Can't really do that in a car.

Of course, it's only 2-4 hours to fly there, depending on flight delays, length of time it takes to get through security, and so on. Actual flight time is a mere 45 minutes.

Simply the Blues coordinator to bring visitors to FM - literally

Festival organizer Matt Eimer said Grammy nominee John Primer, with Dan Beaver, will be performing on the Chicago to Fort Madison train - the Southwest Chief - on May 11, while acoustic blues artist Rich Berry will be playing on the Southwest Chief that morning while it travels from Kansas City to Fort Madison.

Amtrak also is offering a 10 percent discount off of the lowest fare to Fort Madison between May 8 and 15. A code to receive the rate can be found on the Simply the Blues website, www.simplemanenterprises.com. The festival is being held at Rodeo Park on Friday, May 11 and Saturday, May 12.